The Eucharist and women's menstural cycles

[ConstantineTG]

But now we know that the bleeding a woman has during her menses is the sloughing off of the uterine lining (which has built up all month) instead of “active bleeding”. Why do some not recognize this?

Also as I mentioned earlier, some just chose to stick to what has been tradition for a long time. You’ll notice Eastern Christians are more sticklers for “because it has been this way for a long time”. For example, the use of white wine. In the past we see red wine as more symbolic of blood because of its color, thus the right one to use for what will become the Blood of Christ. But today we do know that blood has white blood cells and a clear plasma fluid which looks like most white wines. But Eastern Churches stick to red wine only regardless of that knowledge because it has always been red wine that has been used.

I apologize Constantine…you already answered this in post 15 on this thread.

Oops, I replied to your post before reading the next one

Its okay. I know that threads a few pages long can be hard to go through post by post.

 

[grandfather]

Of course. It also tells us that the practice of refraining had been around a long time, The canons I cited show that the practice of refraining was in the Church hundreds of years earlier.

There is nothing in the quote that says the pope was reversing a practice.

 

[grandfather]

Yes. Some refrained and some did not. I am guessing that the further back you go…the more women refrained during menses.
True.
Likewise.

Would this practice be classified as a bodily observance, perhaps akin to circumcision?

 

[grandfather]

The only thing that makes a member of the Church spiritually unfit to receive the Eucharist is unrepentant sin. It is spiritual uncleanness or defilement that is the problem, not bodily.

Jesus disciples did not wash their hands and perform the proscribed rituals before they ate. He did not tell them to uphold this tradition, because it came from their mothers and fathers. Yet their hands were unwashed, physically dirty.

If some Orthodox mothers and fathers, or clergy teach from their tradition that it is permissable for a menstruating woman to receive and others say it is forbidden, then they contradict one another in their traditions. If all Orthodox agree on the matter they have unity. If not you have relativism.

Either a menstruating woman should not receive, because she is defiled in some bodily way or it does not matter, because she is not defiled. If she is not defiled spiritually (or bodily either for that matter) she should not be kept from the grace of the sacrament.

If in the past some people thought menstruating women would leak out Christ’s blood that is irrelevant. Now that it is known this is nonsense if one insists on upholding the tradition for the sake of tradition even though there is no basis for it in reality, no spiritual basis, then it is nothing more than meaningless bodily observance. The tradition is meaningless.

 

[couponfit]

You own quote from Gregory said that no one could tell a women she can’t receive due to her menstruation cycle.

If you want a better context, it was condemned as part of the “Novgorod heresy” or the judaizers who wished to impose all the Mosaic law customs on Christian. (jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9030-judaizing-heresy-zhidovstvu-yushchaya-yeres, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect_of_Skhariya_the_Jew). I can not find anything more on the council aside from repeated references to judaic practices and mosaic law. I also found an article from a contemporary Orthodox nun where she shows how this practice is probably a hold over from paganism or judaism, and is not in line with Christian anthropology. descentoftheholyspirit.org/articles/article9.html

What if a person belongs to an orthodox church that still does not eat meat on Fri, and still fasts before all feasts? What do you tell them! Do you use the word heresy, moac, judaizer, or pagan to explain to them why they should not do that?

The question is does the Coptic Orthodox Church practice the idea of purity, including not menstruating, and not having sexual intercourse the day of and day before mass? The answer is yes they do! In answering why it is not necessary to answer why non-coptics do not but rather to learn where the practice comes from for Coptic.

 

[rinnie]

This is the way I see it also, and the Pope did say they are to stick to their Traditions set forth by their Church.

But what I am trying to figure out would this not just be Pope Gregory’s personal Opinion?

 

[rinnie]

What if a person belongs to an orthodox church that still does not eat meat on Fri, and still fasts before all feasts? What do you tell them! Do you use the word heresy, moac, judaizer, or pagan to explain to them why they should not do that?

The question is does the Coptic Orthodox Church practice the idea of purity, including not menstruating, and not having sexual intercourse the day of and day before mass? The answer is yes they do! In answering why it is not necessary to answer why non-coptics do not but rather to learn where the practice comes from for Coptic.

I do agree with this also. I guess anything you do for the Glory and Love of our God in a good conscience is never bad. I know my Dad never ate meat on Friday he continued the fast on his own.

 

[Mickey]

Indeed.

 

[Mickey]

Either a menstruating woman should not receive, because she is defiled in some bodily way or it does not matter, because she is not defiled. If she is not defiled spiritually (or bodily either for that matter) she should not be kept from the grace of the sacrament.

" If, however, a woman does not dare to receive, for great trepidation, she should be praised. "
Pope St Gregory the Great

 

[rinnie]

Indeed.

Hey Mickey Merry Christmas from your special Friend. Love and peace to you and all of your family!!

 

[Mickey]

Hey Mickey Merry Christmas from your special Friend. Love and peace to you and all of your family!!

Same to you, dear rinnie!

 

[grandfather]

That is very clear. From the tone of the statement only, but not knowing anything about the reason for making it and what was going on at the time, it sounds like there was some controversy the pope was trying to settle.

Some are saying this, others that. Here is what I say. We need to stop the argument and move on from this distraction, get on with the more important business of the Church.

This was also the reason JPII wrote to define that women can not be priests. No practice was changed, but an existing tradition was in dispute, so he clarified and confirmed it to settle the matter.

 

[grandfather]

There certainly is no dogma here. The decision is left to the person. If we had the bishop of one diocese insisting X should be practiced by half the Catholics in his domain and the bishop of another saying the opposite we have confusion about practice of the faith, don’t we? What should a woman do if she lives in one diocese and visits another across the river of its boundary? How would she even know if the Church teaches something different from one place to another, not only on this matter, but many others.

It is true that there are Catholic bishops and priests who are heterodox (at best) in what they say. Today they are called dissenters. This has been true throughout history. That puts them outside the unity of the faith. When this situation arises we do not say each bishop can teach whatever he wants. We appeal to higher authority to maintain unity.

A bishop might not agree with the Church’s ancient moral teaching on contraception. That does not mean he can legitimately teach whatever he wishes in his diocese. His job is to teach and confirm the faith, not define it.

 

[Mickey]

Some are saying this, others that. Here is what I say. We need to stop the argument and move on from this distraction, get on with the more important business of the Church.

I think you are putting words into St Gregory’s mouth.

 

[Mickey]

The decision is left to the person.

And of course in conjuntion with their spiritual director.

What should a woman do if she lives in one diocese and visits another across the river of its boundary?

She would obey her spiritual director.

It is true that there are Catholic bishops and priests who are heterodox (at best) in what they say.

Really?

 

[grandfather]

" If, however, a woman does not dare to receive, for great trepidation, she should be praised. "
Pope St Gregory the Great

“If however”. However what? He says women may do as they wish. There is no rule. Women are at liberty to do as they personally think right.

Does he say women who receive should not be praised, but rather be criticized for doing what he just said they may do?

While there is no dogma here, because none is necessary, the pope is establishing a universal practice or discipline in the Church. He did not say it is up to the local ordinary to decide what should take place in his territory. His statement plainly says it is up to the individual woman and what is implied in that is her mother or father, the parish priest, local bishops or any previous practice (tradition) here or there, is irrelevant to the matter. The local bishop, whatever his opinion might be, has no jurisdiction in the matter. The woman is at liberty.

If some Orthodox believe mothers and fathers, local clergy or past practice to the contrary take away this liberty of the individual they reject the practice made clear by this pope. That is not surprising, but their problem comes if their mothers, fathers, priests, bishops or local traditions are not in harmony with one another. What is permissable for an Orthodox woman here, is forbidden there.

In the end it is about bodily observance. A woman is not defiled by nature, made spiritually unclean, unfit to receive, to know and love God. She is welcome to receive her Lord and Savior. If what goes on in our bodies which we have no control over keeps us from the sacraments then our bodies make us unworthy. Then a dying person in the hospital leaking bodily fluids and blood and infection is unworthy of the things he needs most at the moment of death and prevented from receiving them.

This is certainly not what the Catholic Chuch teaches.

Long before the pope made the statement in question the issue was settled. Long before Catholics or Orthodox even thought about it, it was settled once and forever.

The woman with an issue of blood for many years who thought it made her unclean knew that if she approached Him and only touched his garment she would be healed. She did and she was, and Jesus Himself was pleased that she was set free. She thought it was forbidden for her to do this so she did it secretly. He did not rebuke her or send her away. Any religious leader or tradition that does the opposite disagrees with Christ Himself, not simply His spokesman. Are they judaizers? They seem to hold the same notions as the Jews about impurity, and women.

 

[grandfather]

I think you are putting words into St Gregory’s mouth.

Yes, I agree. It is my speculation for the reason for his statement, given the little I know of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the statement out of context.

I do not know the reason he wrote. It looks like, it appears that it was to settle a controversy. It is unlikely it came out of the blue, but was a response to something going on within the Church.

 

[Mickey]

I do not know the reason he wrote.

Then you should not speculate. It is obvious that he is saying that both practices are acceptable. You do not need to speculate further. Some women receive during menses and some women don’t.

 

[Kristin234]

I don’t know about the Orthodox but that is how it is in the ACOE. I don’t know if all the women actually follow it, but I remember when I was younger hearing a few women saying they couldn’t receive communion because of that reason

 

[Mickey]

Women are at liberty to do as they personally think right.

In Holy orthodoxy…we are obedient to our Spiritual directors.

While there is no dogma here, because none is necessary, the pope is establishing a universal practice or discipline in the Church.

Yes. Both practices are acceptable… Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

He did not say it is up to the local ordinary to decide what should take place in his territory. His statement plainly says it is up to the individual woman and what is implied in that is her mother or father, the parish priest, local bishops or any previous practice (tradition) here or there, is irrelevant to the matter.

Doubtful…St Gregory was quite Orthodox. It goes without saying that he knew about obedience to a Spiritual director.

If some Orthodox believe mothers and fathers, local clergy or past practice to the contrary take away this liberty of the individual they reject the practice made clear by this pope.

You do not understand obedience to the spiritual father/mother.

In the end it is about bodily observance.

In the end…it is about obedience to one’s spiritual mother/father after long talks and counseling and confession.

Long before the pope made the statement in question the issue was settled.

Yeah…I am thinking that most did not receive during menses.